Sports Medicine

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01565-z

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists:

A Systematic Mapping Review
Antony M. J. Stadnyk1,2   · Franco M. Impellizzeri1   · Jamie Stanley3,4,5 · Paolo Menaspà6   · Katie M. Slattery1

Accepted: 5 September 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
Background  Track cyclists must develop mental, physical, tactical and technical capabilities to achieve success at an elite
level. Given the importance of these components in determining performance, it is of interest to understand the volume of
evidence to support implementation in practice by coaches, practitioners, and athletes.
Objective  The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic mapping review to describe the current scale and density of
research for testing, training and optimising performance in track cycling.
Methods  All publications involving track cyclist participants were reviewed from four databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus,
Academic Search Complete, Cochrane Library) plus additional sources. Search results returned 4019 records, of which 71
met the inclusion criteria for the review.
Results  The review revealed most published track cycling research investigated athlete testing followed by performance
optimisation, with training being the least addressed domain. Research on the physical components of track cycling has been
published far more frequently than for tactical or technical components, and only one study was published on the mental
components of track cycling. No true experimental research using track cyclists has been published, with 51 non-experimental
and 20 quasi-experimental study designs.
Conclusions  Research in track cycling has been growing steadily. However, it is evident there is a clear preference toward
understanding the physical—rather than mental, tactical, or technical—demands of track cycling. Future research should
investigate how this aligns with coach, practitioner, and athlete needs for achieving track cycling success.
Registration  This systematic mapping review was registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wt7eq).

1 Introduction race as quickly as possible. Track cycling races are generally

Track cycling, at an international elite level, is a sport that
requires athletes to ride around a 250 m banked track on
fixed-gear bicycles with the primary objective of finishing a
* Antony M. J. Stadnyk
antony.stadnyk@uts.edu.au
1
School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, University
of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
2
New South Wales Institute of Sport, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3
South Australian Sports Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia
4
Australian Cycling Team, Adelaide, SA, Australia
5
Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
6
Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, School
of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University,
Joondalup, WA, Australia
categorised as sprint (e.g., team sprint, keirin) or endurance
(e.g., team pursuit, bunch races), depending on their distance
and demands. Sprint events can last as little as 9 s, whereas
endurance events are over 3.5 min for pursuits, and longer for
bunch races (typically 10–60 min duration). Track cycling is
a demanding sport [1] and developing athletes for competi-
tion at an elite level can be a circuitous challenge. To make
the process as efficient and effective as possible, coaches,
practitioners (e.g., physiologists, strength and conditioning
coaches, biomechanists, engineers) and the athletes them-
selves seek evidence that will help them to reach training
and performance goals. Under the evidence-based practice
framework, this relies on the best-available scientific evi-
dence supplementing our experiences and values to inform
our methods [2]. Many world records within track cycling
have been broken and rebroken in recent years through both
human- and equipment-driven performance improvement.
Such performances may indicate that the demands of track

Vol.:(0123456789)

Key Points  acteristics of value to researchers and practitioners alike [7,
Relative to other cycling disciplines, there is limited
research to support evidence-based practices for develop-
ing track cycling, and while interest has grown signifi-
cantly in the past decade, no true experimental studies
have been conducted to date, therefore our limited
understanding of causal pathways between interventions
and performance persists.
The physical component of performance is the most
commonly researched, across a broad range of top-
ics, while the mental component is almost completely
unaddressed. Testing is the most commonly researched
domain of athlete preparation, whereas training is the
least investigated.
Future research should seek to understand the impor-
tance of each component of performance within the
domains of athlete preparation in track cycling, and
how the current evidence aligns with, and could better
address, the needs of coaches and practitioners imple-
menting research in practice to develop track cyclists.
cycling events are changing; as performance times shorten,
relative metabolic contributions may be altered [3], along
with the physiological and morphological profiles of the ath-
letes best-suited to the various races. However, it is unclear
if the available scientific evidence is relevant or is keeping
up to date so that true evidence-based practice can be fea-
sibly achieved.
Despite being the cycling discipline offering the highest
number of Olympic and Paralympic medals, track cycling
lacks the breadth or depth of scientific evidence that is com-
paratively available for road cycling and mountain biking.
While some fundamentals of the sport are similar to those
close relatives (e.g., physiological profiles [4]), there are also
distinctions (e.g., fixed-gear cycling, tactical and technical
demands) that can be made that require a greater specificity,
and subsequent application, of knowledge to achieve desired
results. The ‘adopting’ and ‘adapting’ of evidence from one
sporting discipline to another, while potentially useful in the
short term, may be an imperfect solution that, in the long
term, can lead to imperfect results and missed opportunities
for those implementing the findings in practice.
While groups have characterised the demands of cycling
broadly across all disciplines [4], various athletes’ training
profiles [5], and studied physiological interventions [6],
none have reviewed all available literature on track cycling
to evaluate the current quantity or quality of evidence avail-
able. As such, a systematic mapping review was completed.
This style of review follows standard systematic search
A. M. J. Stadnyk et al.
principles, then categorises each study by a subset of char-
8]. Mapping reviews identify gaps in the literature and a
path toward necessary further research or reviews. The data
are presented in a user-friendly manner to aid the reader
in visualising the scale and density of a research area [8].
The present review, along with forthcoming research by the
authors, will inform the future development of a framework
for researchers and practitioners to guide research and the
development of track cycling athletes.
2 Methods
2.1 Research Question
We conducted a systematic mapping review to answer the
following research questions:
1. What is the quantity and type of research published on
track cycling, and what temporal trends, if any, exist?
2. Which domains of athlete preparation have been the
focus of track cycling research?
3. Which components of athlete performance has track
cycling research investigated?
2.2 Search Strategy and Screening Process
We conducted a systematic mapping review of literature
involving track cyclists using the Academic Search Com-
plete, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus data-
bases. A search strategy was developed to identify all rel-
evant studies using an extensive list of terms related to track
cycling. Scoping searches were conducted on each database
using variations of search terms, operators, and wildcards
to maximise the number of search results returned with the
final search strategy. Due to wildcards having an undesirable
effect on search results within and between databases (e.g.,
omitting potentially relevant search results), a standardised
search strategy that included both singular and pluralised
variations of search terms was chosen. All databases were
first searched from the earliest record up to and including
28 August 2019. The search was updated with new results
from all databases on 13 October 2020. Potentially relevant
literature not found in database searches were identified
from other sources (e.g., included studies’ reference lists)
and were included for screening. The literature search and
screening process is outlined in the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
diagram [9] shown in Fig. 1. The review protocol was regis-
tered with Open Science Framework (OSF; ID: wt7eq), an
open public data repository.
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists

All records were uploaded to Covidence (Veritas Health
Information, Melbourne, VIC, Australia), a web-based screen-
ing tool, and were initially screened by title and abstract
against the selection criteria (see below). If an article did not
clearly meet the selection criteria in the initial screening pro-
cess, it was included in the full-text screening phase. Articles
were initially screened by AS and KS, with articles approved
by both reviewers being sent to the following stage, while
articles rejected by both were noted before being removed.
If there was disagreement between reviewers, the article was
sent to a third reviewer (FMI) to approve or reject. This pro-
cess was performed during the screening of abstracts and, sub-
sequently, full-text articles. The inter-rater agreement Cohen’s
κ was 0.62 (97.5%) and 0.70 (84.7%) for the title/abstract and
full-text screening phases, respectively. A reason for exclusion
was noted for each article removed during the full-text arti-
cle screening stage. Best efforts were made by the research-
ers to find all full-text articles; however, in instances where
these were not found (n = 13; 9.8%), researchers screened the
available information (e.g., abstracts) and, if sufficient detail
was present, they were included for analysis. As such, arti-
cles without full-text available were not necessarily excluded,
which is a benefit of mapping reviews.
2.3 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Our inclusion criteria were studies that (1) specifically
involved competitive or trained track cyclists; (2) described
methods employed for testing, training, and/or optimising
the performance of track cyclists, or described the charac-
teristics of testing, training, and/or performance of track
cyclists; and (3) were original research (i.e., not reviews,
book chapters, opinions, editorials). Exclusion criteria
included studies that (1) did not delineate results if the
sample included non-track cyclists; and (2) were primarily
nutritional interventions. As this was a mapping review, no
quality appraisal was performed and all studies meeting our
criteria were included [7].

Fig. 1  PRISMA flowchart of
the literature search and screen- PubMed SPORTDiscus
ing process. PRISMA Preferred Literature Search n = 1219 n = 1766
Reporting Items for Systematic
Identification

13 October 2020
Reviews and Meta-Analyses, TI Academic Search Complete Cochrane Library
title, AB abstract, KW keywords n = 861 n = 170

Records after merging databases Records identified from other sources

n = 4016 n=3

Duplicates removed
n = 511
Screening

Records screened for eligibility

n = 3508

Records excluded after screening TI, AB, KW

n = 3376

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

n = 132
Eligibility

Full-text articles excluded

n = 61
Included

Studies included in Systematic Mapping Review

n = 71
 A. M. J. Stadnyk et al.

2.4 Data Extraction track cycling performance; may be practical or theoreti-

To create a map of existing track cycling literature, AS
extracted all data pertaining to study details (experimen-
tal design, duration, country), population (sample size, age,
training status, anthropometry, athlete country), specific
measures/methods/interventions investigated, and gen-
eral outcomes reported. Extracted data were entered into
a custom-made online spreadsheet allowing for simultane-
ous data entry and review by multiple authors. After initial
data extraction, a random sample of studies was allocated to
each of the remaining authors to cross-check extracted data
against the respective full-text article to ensure accuracy. As
mapping reviews do not necessarily synthesise all extracted
data [8], a tabular summary of the data has not been pro-
vided within this text; however, select data pertinent to the
research aims and questions have been reported throughout
the following sections. The complete extracted data file is
available to view online (osf.io/wt7eq).
2.5 Categorisation of Studies
cal in nature, including, but not limited to, tactics, skills
and technique, athlete–equipment interaction, strategies
to optimise performance.
Sports performance is the product of a complex interplay
between mental, physical, tactical, and technical components
[10–12], therefore these were used as secondary categori-
sations to highlight how frequently these areas have been
addressed in research. For the purposes of this review, stud-
ies were classified as per the following descriptors:
• Mental Psychological constructs within track cycling and
cyclists.
• Physical Physiological capacities or demands of track
cyclists/cycling.
• Tactical Strategic considerations within track cycling,
e.g., pacing, interactions with other individuals such as
in team pursuit or match sprints.
• Technical Biomechanics, aerodynamics, acquisition and
execution of individual riding skills.

The primary feature of evidence mapping is the categorisa- All studies were initially categorised by AS and KS. Dif-
tion of studies by generalised characteristics. As is common ferences in categorisation were discussed and resolved by
in qualitative research, evidence mapping involves a form of these two authors plus FMI. Studies were categorised in all
thematic analysis to identify and examine emergent themes applicable domains and components.
or patterns within data. The primary categorisations related
to the distinct, but interrelated, domains or phases of the
‘circular’ process of athlete preparation—testing, training,
and performance optimisation (Fig. 2). In this process, ath-
letes are tested, test results inform training prescription, and
training influences capacity to perform, which itself can be
optimised. The performance or repeated testing restarts this
process. For the purposes of this mapping review, we con-
structed operational definitions for each of these domains/
phases to guide categorisation now and in any future
research. These definitions are:

• Testing Describes the characteristics of track cyclists or

quantifies a component of track cycling performance for
the purpose of establishing normative test values to make
comparisons within and between athletes; or, assesses
a specific, isolated/acute test’s validity, reliability, or
relevance to a component of track cycling performance,
either independently or in comparison with another test-
ing method.
• Training Assesses training practices or methods pre-
scribed to track cyclists for the purpose of establishing
inter- and/or intraindividual acute or chronic responses
and/or their effect on a component of track cycling per- Fig. 2  A visual representation of the interface between the distinct,
but interrelated, Domains of Athlete Preparation (outer circle), and
formance, and strategies that promote optimal adaptation.
Components of Athlete Performance (inner circle); arrows indi-
• Performance Optimisation Describes or assesses prac- cate potential interactions between the components, which can be
tices related to understanding or improving execution of addressed within each of the domains
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists
3 Results
3.1 Growing Research Interest in Track Cycling
The number of publications per year in track cycling has
steadily risen. A sharp increase in quantity from 2009
onwards is evident, and there were as many studies pub-
lished between 2012 and 2020 as there were from 1975 to
2012. Whether by coincidence or other underlying reason,
there appears to be a trend for a small spike in publications
in the period immediately after the Olympic Games (col-
oured gold in Fig. 3). The median number of publications
per year peaks at 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.5–2.5) in
the year immediately following the Olympic Games and
declines gradually at two [1 (0–2)] and three [1 (0.75–2)]
years post Olympics. A median of 0.5 (0–1) studies were
published per Olympic Games year.
Eighteen nations, per first author affiliation (20 nations
in total), have contributed to the track cycling literature,
with global interest increasing across each decade. Between
1975 and 1999, only seven countries (Australia, Canada,
Czechoslovakia, France, Japan, UK, USA) had published
track cycling research, with research groups from Australia
conducting half of those studies. Each subsequent decade
has seen the added contributions of a further four countries
(Brazil, China, Germany, Spain) between 2000 and 2009,
seven countries (Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Switzerland) between 2010 and
2019, and two countries (India, South Africa) in 2020. Aus-
tralian institution-affiliated researchers have had the largest
contribution with 24 publications and is the only country
to have made contributions in each decade since 1980. The
UK follow with 18 publications and, along with France- and
Fig. 3  Number of track cycling
publications by year; cumulative
number over time is represented
by the red line, and Olympic
Games years are coloured gold
(note: Tokyo 2020 Olympic
Games were postponed to 2021)
USA-based researchers, have made contributions in four of
the decades since 1975.
3.2 Research Design
Each study was assessed for their research design as per
the descriptors provided by Page [13]. The scientific sub-
disciplines of each study, organised by research method
and type, are shown in Table 1. As is common across elite
sport and the sport science literature, there is a lack of true
experimental research, i.e., randomised control trials [RCTs]
published on track cyclists. Of the 71 publications that met
our inclusion criteria, none had a true experimental study
design. Over 70% of the included studies (n = 51) were non-
experimental study designs, with the remainder (28.2%)
being quasi-experimental.
Descriptive studies (e.g., case-study, observational) were
the most common (n = 23) non-experimental research type,
followed by exploratory (e.g., cohort, correlational; n = 28).
Of the quasi-experimental studies, 14 used a pre-post or
repeated measures design, while six used a crossover design.
Studies ranged in duration from single days or testing ses-
sions (n = 19) to 1 year or longer (n = 11). The median study
duration was 4 days, with 16 studies of 2–4 days’ duration
and 11 studies of 10–28 days’ duration. There were six stud-
ies between 3 and 6 months’ duration. The median duration
of quasi-experimental studies was 15 days, versus 3 days for
non-experimental studies. All of the studies that lasted a year
or longer were non-experimental.
Only two of the studies investigated solely female track
cyclists [16, 17], whereas 70.4% (n = 50) of studies assessed
only male track cyclists. The remainder were mixed-sex
samples (n = 19; 26.8%). There was a similar mix of studies
involving track sprint (n = 29) and track endurance (n = 30)
 A. M. J. Stadnyk et al.

Table 1  Research designs used by included studies (reference num- in 33 (46.5%) studies. Training was the primary domain of
bers in brackets), categorised by their respective scientific subdisci- interest in 16 (22.5%) studies, and a secondary domain in a
plines; the full dataset with category filters is available at osf.io/wt7eq
further 5 (7.0%) studies. Performance was the primary focus
Non-experimental Experimental of investigation in 22 (31.0%) studies, and 10 other studies
Descriptive Exploratory Quasi (14.1%) included an aspect of Performance as a secondary
focus. Among the studies that had both a primary and sec-
Aerodynamics [14] ondary domain of focus (n = 20; 28.2%), the most common
 + Biomechanics [15] pairings were Testing and Performance (n = 12; 16.9%), fol-
 + Tactics/Strategy [16] lowed by Testing and Training (n = 5; 7.0%), and Training
Anthropometry [17, 18] [19, 20] and Performance (n = 3; 4.2%).
 + Aerodynamics [21]
Biomechanics [22] [23] [24, 25] 3.4 Components of Athlete Performance
 + Physiology [26]
Physiology [27–34] [35–46] [6, 47–60] Athletes must develop a range of capabilities across four key
 + Aerodynamics [61] components of performance, which they must then integrate
 + Anthropometry [5] [62–67] during competition in order to put themselves in a position
 + Biomechanics [68] for success [10–12]. Understanding each of those compo-
Psychology [69] nents (and their composite elements) and how they interact
Skill acquisition/technique [70] is imperative for developing a well-rounded athlete and con-
Tactics/strategy [71–74] [75–77] [78] sistent and optimal performances. The Physical component
 + Aerodynamics [79] of sporting performance was the most frequent focus of the
 + Physiology [80] [81] included studies in this review across various scientific sub-
 + Skill Acquisition [82] disciplines, including physiology and anthropometry. Con-
versely, the Mental component was the least examined, with
only a single study published on pre-competition stress [69].
cyclists. The remaining 12 studies had a mixed sample of the Across all included studies, the Physical component was
two categories of riders, many of which delineated results to the primary focus in 50 (70.4%) studies, and as a second-
distinguish the differing demands of their respective events. ary focus in a further seven (9.9%) papers. Tactical (e.g.,
Most studies involved a heterogeneous mix of track cyclists tactics and strategy) and Technical (e.g., aerodynamics and
with varying training statuses and competing at levels rang- technique) components of performance were investigated
ing from ‘Local/Regional’ (n = 7) to ‘Olympic’ (n = 31) in 16 (22.5%) articles each and were the primary focus in
level. There were seven studies involving athletes competing 12 (16.9%) and 8 (11.3%) of those studies, respectively. Of
at a State level, and 26 studies sampled ‘National’-level track the 18 (25.4%) studies that had both a primary and second-
cyclists. Over 60% (n = 43) of the included studies involved ary component, the most frequent interactions were between
athletes competing at or above ‘International’ level, e.g., Physical and Technical (n = 11; 15.5%), Physical and Tacti-
World Championships, World Cups. In four of the studies, cal (n = 6; 8.5%), and Tactical and Technical (n = 2; 2.8%).
it was unclear what the training status of the track cyclists
was. Athletes’ ages ranged from teen/adolescent to Masters
grade (i.e., over 35 years of age), although the majority of 4 Discussion
participants were adult/senior (i.e., > 18 years of age com-
petition level). 4.1 Summary of Findings

3.3 Domains of Athlete Preparation
Athlete preparation for competition at an elite level is a pro-
cess of Testing, followed by Training, followed by (optimis-
ing) Performance, repeated in a circular fashion with the aim
of continual development and improvement. Of these three
domains, or phases, of preparation in track cycling, Test-
ing has received the most attention and Training the least
(Fig. 4). Testing within track cycling was investigated in
38 (53.5%) papers, and was the primary domain of interest
This is the first systematic mapping review of the track cycling
literature. The study included all papers published until Octo-
ber 2020. The results provide a snapshot of the published
knowledge existing in the sport of track cycling and provide
the reader an understanding of the domains and components
that have, to date, received the most and least attention. The
review also provides an overview of the research designs that
have been employed, which may provide a proxy of the qual-
ity of evidence upon which testing, training, and/or perfor-
mance decisions can be made in practice.
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists
Fig. 4  Heat map of the fre-
quency of studies as categorised
within the Domains of Athlete
Preparation (y-axis) and Com-
ponents of Athlete Performance
(x-axis); colours correspond
to the number of articles, with
darker squares indicating higher
research density (key, top left)
Unsurprisingly, it is evident that the Physical components
of athlete performance are the most investigated within the
track cycling literature, reflecting its critical importance [1].
The studies included investigations of test protocols, e.g.,
critical power and W’ [35, 36, 66]; establishing indices/
requirements of performance [5, 61, 62]; normative values
for body composition [17, 20] and post-competition lactate
accumulation [27]; and the efficacy of warm-up protocols
[6, 59] and recovery modalities [52, 55, 56]. However, there
is clearly less published research on the tactical and techni-
cal components despite their importance in various sprint
(e.g., match sprint, keirin) and endurance (e.g., team pursuit,
bunch) events [73, 75, 76]. In the case of mental compo-
nents of performance, which have only been addressed in
one study, the broader sport psychology literature may be
reasonably applicable within track cycling. However, it may
still be useful to develop a profile of the mental skills and
strategies employed by track cyclists to meet the psychologi-
cal demands of competition. Areas that may be of interest
in track cycling that have been studied in road cycling or
other sports include mental preparation for multiple races
(e.g., qualifying-to-finals, timed-to-tactical races, omnium);
improving cognitive resilience for decision making (e.g., in
bunch racing or match sprints); developing leadership skills
that can contribute to social labouring (e.g., in team pursuit).
The difficulties of conducting RCTs in elite sport are
well known [2] due to the small samples of homogenous
athletes and the impracticality of manipulating training
in the randomisation of athletes to different interventions
with potentially detrimental impacts on performance. This
fact is reflected in the lack of true experimental research
designs. While several studies included within this review
have utilised non- and quasi-experimental research designs
to examine various training interventions [e.g., 30, 50, 53,
57] and have shown promising results, the inevitable risk of
bias demands greater scrutiny and caution prior to imple-
mentation in practice.
The observed trend of declining publications with
increasing proximity to the Olympic Games start date can
be attributed to a number of possible factors. For track
cycling research and performance programmes, there may
be reduced time availability to publish as a result of a shift in
resource allocation toward athlete preparation. Alternatively,
it may point to an element of secrecy among competitors.
Track cycling, as with other Olympic sports, is highly com-
petitive, therefore it is possible that researchers deliberately
withhold research from publication until after the pinnacle
event as a means of limiting valuable findings and informa-
tion being utilised by competing nations. Due to the low
number of annual publications both prior to 2009 and gener-
ally, it is difficult to conclude this correlation is the result of
anything more than chance, but it is nonetheless a notable
and interesting trend.
Research country of origin tends to follow nations that
are active in track cycling competition. Whether publication
of research directly explains track cycling success, or vice
versa (i.e., reverse causality), cannot be shown with much
certainty. However, it is notable that the four countries with
the greatest contribution to the literature are frequently high
performing in World Championships, World Series, Com-
monwealth Games, and Olympic Games. As per previous
statements within this discussion, the published research is
likely only a fraction of the true amount of research con-
ducted within track cycling. Other highly competitive track
cycling nations are very likely conducting major and minor

projects aimed at understanding and improving performance,
which are reserved for their own personal advantage.
Although research interest has been increasing, and at
approximately the same rate as sport science research in gen-
eral, the 71 publications included in this review demonstrate
the relatively low volume of research specifically involving
track cyclists. A quick search of PubMed reveals at least
triple the number of results for ‘road cycling’ and ‘moun-
tain-biking’ compared with ‘track cycling’. This discrepancy
exists despite there being 21 Olympic and Paralympic track
cycling events, compared with 15 events across road, moun-
tain bike, and BMX events, combined. While transferability
of knowledge exists across these disciplines, it is imperative
that research addresses the needs of track cycling with more
specificity to its demands.
4.2 Limitations
A potential, albeit self-imposed, limitation of the present
review was the decision to exclude studies with non-track
cyclist populations (e.g., trained road cyclists) despite the
possible relevance to parameters of track cycling (e.g.,
use of 4 km time trials as a performance measure). While
these studies may be useful to consider alongside the track
cycling-specific literature, as some of the included studies
make clear, there are notable differences in the physiology
and morphology of track and road cyclists. The purpose of
this review was to map the literature to understand the scale
and density of research and identify any areas potentially
requiring attention specifically within track cycling. There-
fore, given the scope of this research, we believe the exclu-
sion of broader populations was reasonable.
The full-text articles of several records appearing in the
screening process were not able to be located for appraisal.
As such, some of these missing articles may have been
excluded from the final review. In most cases however the
available abstract provided sufficient information to discern
eligibility for inclusion; appropriately categorise the study
by domain, component, and scientific subdiscipline; and
extract basic information about the study.
4.3 Implications and Future Research
The mapped literature shows an apparent preference of
researchers toward addressing the physical component of
performance rather than tactical, technical, or mental compo-
nents. Those studies also tend to be focused on the domains
of testing and performance optimisation, with the training
domain receiving considerably less attention. There is con-
siderable overlap and interdependency between the domains
of athlete preparation, therefore research conducted in any
of the three likely has flow-on benefits for the others. Con-
trastingly, while there is interplay between the components
A. M. J. Stadnyk et al.
of performance, and their effective integration contributes
to success, they are more independent and therefore should
be investigated as such to improve our understanding for
application in track cycling. The limited research on tacti-
cal, technical, and mental components of performance may
be limiting the ability of those within the sport to effec-
tively improve athletes’ capabilities in those areas. The
perspectives of coaches and athletes about specific research
questions within each of these domains and components is
invaluable to researchers, and therefore we should seek to
gather their input from the earliest stages of study design
through to dissemination. In particular, researchers must ask
what is relevant and important to coaches and athletes for
improving performance so that these can be addressed in a
more targeted manner. Understanding the current needs of
the sport and how the current literature aligns with those
needs is critical to delivering a pipeline of research that is
relevant and reliable in practice.
Furthermore, the dependence on quasi-experimental
and especially non-experimental research may also limit
the efficacy for implementation of research findings in
evidence-based practices. These research designs also do
not permit for understanding the causative effects of vari-
ous interventions and can result in a greater risk of bias.
We acknowledge the difficulties with administering well-
controlled, randomised research in high-performance sport
environments, but we do encourage researchers interested in
track cycling, and the sport science community as a whole,
to look for solutions to this issue so that we can improve the
quality of our research and understanding of the demands
and needs of the sport, and the true causative effects of our
interventions and practices. The use of multicentre studies
should be explored as one method for increasing the sampled
populations available to researchers in answering valuable
research questions. Closer collaboration with track cycling
programmes and national sporting organisations, and their
direct inclusion in research design and decision-making pro-
cesses could be a possible solution to the research-quality
dilemma.
Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-​021-​01565-z.
Acknowledgements  AS is supported by an Australian Government
Research Training Programme Scholarship.
Declarations 
Funding  None declared.
Conflicts of interest Antony M.J. Stadnyk, Franco M. Impellizzeri,
Jamie Stanley, Paolo Menaspà and. Katie M. Slattery declare they have
no conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of this manuscript.
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists
Availability of data and material  This review was registered on OSF
and all search results, data, interactive visualisations, and registration
and protocol information are available online at http://​osf.​io/​wt7eq.
Code availability  Not applicable.
Author contributions  AS, KS, and FMI designed the study, with input
from JS and PM. AS and FMI determined the search strategy. AS com-
pleted all searches and data collection. AS, KS, and FMI oversaw the
screening and categorisation of articles. AS extracted all data, with
KS, FMI, JS, and PM assessing the accuracy of the extracted data.
AS wrote the first draft, with all authors contributing to the editing of
drafts to the final manuscript stage. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.
Ethics approval  Not applicable.
Consent to participate  Not applicable.
Consent for publication  Not applicable.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
1. Craig NP, Norton KI. Characteristics of track cycling. Sports Med.
2001;31(7):457–68.
2. Coutts AJ. Challenges in developing evidence-based prac-
tice in high-performance sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2017;12(6):717–8.
3. Gastin PB. Energy system interaction and relative contribution
during maximal exercise. Sports Med. 2001;31(10):725–41.
4. Faria EW, Parker DL, Faria IE. The science of cycling: physiology
and training—part 1. Sports Med. 2005;35(4):285–312.
5. Schumacher YO, Mueller P. The 4000-m team pursuit cycling
world record: theoretical and practical aspects. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2002;34(6):1029–36.
6. Munro LA, Stannard SR, Fink PW, Foskett A. Potentiation of
sprint cycling performance: the effects of a high-inertia ergometer
warm-up. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(14):1442–50.
7. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14
review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J.
2009;26(2):91–108.
8. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is
an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence
maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev.
2016;10(5):28.
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
10. Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM. Test validation in sport physiol-
ogy: lessons learned from clinimetrics. Int J Sports Physiol Per-
form. 2009;4(2):269–77.
11. Carling C. Interpreting physical performance in professional soc-
cer match-play: should we be more pragmatic in our approach?
Sports Med. 2013;43(8):655–63.
12. Smith D. A framework for understanding the training process
leading to elite performance. Sports Med. 2003;33(15):103–26.
13. Page P. Research designs in sports physical therapy. Int J Sports
Phys Ther. 2012;7(5):482–92.
14. Fitzgerald S, Kelso R, Grimshaw P, Warr A. Measurement of
the air velocity and turbulence in a simulated track cycling team
pursuit race. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn. 2019;190:322–30.
15. Underwood L, Schumacher J, Burette-Pommay J, Jermy
M. Aerodynamic drag and biomechanical power of a track
cyclist as a function of shoulder and torso angles. Sports Eng.
2011;14(2–4):147–54.
16. Fitton B, Caddy O, Symons D. The impact of relative athlete
characteristics on the drag reductions caused by drafting when
cycling in a velodrome. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sports Eng
Technol. 2017;232(1):39–49.
17. Haakonssen EC, Barras M, Burke LM, Jenkins DG, Mar-
tin DT. Body composition of female road and track endurance
cyclists: Normative values and typical changes. Eur J Sport Sci.
2016;16(6):645–53.
18. Stejskal F. Somatotypes of track cyclists. Teorie a Praxe Telesne
Vychovy. 1975;23(8):483–7.
19. Fletcher D, McNaughton L. Three methods of assessing
per cent body fat in elite cyclists. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
1987;27(2):211–6.
20. McLean BD, Parker AW. An anthropometric analysis of elite Aus-
tralian track cyclists. J Sports Sci. 1989;7(3):247–55.
21. Haake SJ. The impact of technology on sporting performance in
Olympic sports. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(13):1421–31.
22. Mueller P, McEvoy M, Everett S. The long sitting screening test
in elite cyclists. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8(4):369–74.
23. Burnie L, Barratt P, Davids K, Worsfold P, Wheat J. Biomechani-
cal measures of short-term maximal cycling on an ergometer: a
test-retest study. Sports Biomech. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
14763​141.​2020.​17739​16 (Ahead of print).
24. Bini R, Daly L, Kingsley M. Changes in body position on the bike
during seated sprint cycling: Applications to bike fitting. Eur J
Sport Sci. 2020;20(1):35–42.
25. Kolumbet AN, Dudorova LY, Dovgych AA, Ivaschenko EA, Mel-
nik AA, Nichiporenko IV, et al. Improvement of cyclists’ pedal-
ing technique by studying their individual differences. J Phys Ed
Coach. 2019;19(3):1577–84.
26. Barron H, Reid D, Hamilton B. Injury surveillance in elite New
Zealand track cyclists: establishing the baseline incidence and
prevalence of injury and its effect on training and competition for
elite New Zealand cyclists. NZ J Sports Med. 2018;45(1):12–21.
27. Burke ER, Fleck S, Dickson T. Post-competition blood lactate
concentrations in competitive track cyclists. Br J Sports Med.
1981;15(4):242–5.
28. Del Vecchio L, Villegas J, Borges N, Reaburn P. Concurrent
resistance training and flying 200-meter time trial program for a
masters track cyclist. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(3):1–10.
29. Gou B, Yan J, Li Z, Ma G, Liu M. Application of SRM training
system in track sprint—trained cyclists special power training. J
Xi’an Phys Ed Uni. 2008;25(5):59–64.
30. Kordi M, Evans M, Howatson G. Quasi-isometric cycling:
a case study investigation of a novel method to augment peak
power output in sprint cycling. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2020;16(3):452–5.

31. McDonald KG, Grote S, Shoepe TC. Effect of training mode on
post-exercise heart rate recovery of trained cyclists. J Hum Kinet.
2014;41:43–9.
32. Schumacher YO, Mueller P, Keul J. Development of peak
performance in track cycling. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
2001;41(2):139–46.
33. Telford RD, Hahn AG, Pyne DB, Tumilty DM. Strength, anaer-
obic capacities and aerobic power of Australian track and road
cyclists. Excel. 1990;6(4):20–2.
34. Watanabe K, Sato T, Mukaimoto T, Takashima W, Yamagishi M,
Nishiyama T. Electromyographic analysis of thigh muscles during
track cycling on a velodrome. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(15):1413–22.
35. Bartram JC, Thewlis D, Martin DT, Norton KI. Predicting critical
power in elite cyclists: questioning the validity of the 3-minute
all-out test. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(6):783–7.
36. Bartram JC, Thewlis D, Martin DT, Norton KI. Accuracy of
W’ recovery kinetics in high performance cyclists-modeling
intermittent work capacity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2018;13(6):724–8.
37. Craig NP, Pyke FS, Norton KI. Specificity of test duration when
assessing the anaerobic lactacid capacity of high-performance
track cyclists. Int J Sports Med. 1989;10(4):237–42.
38. Gardner AS, Martin JC, Martin DT, Barras M, Jenkins DG.
Maximal torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships for elite
sprint cyclists in laboratory and field tests. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2007;101(3):287–92.
39. Gardner AS, Martin DT, Jenkins DG, Dyer I, Van Eiden J, Barras
M, et al. Velocity-specific fatigue: quantifying fatigue during vari-
able velocity cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(4):904–11.
40. Guellich A, Seiler S. Lactate profile changes in relation to training
characteristics in junior elite cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2010;5(3):316–27.
41. Kordi M, Menzies C, Parker SL. Relationship between power-
duration parameters and mechanical and anthropometric
properties of the thigh in elite cyclists. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2018;118(3):637–45.
42. Marion GA, Leger LA. Energetics of indoor track cycling in
trained competitors. Int J Sports Med. 1988;9(3):234–9.
43. Nimmerichter A, Williams CA. Comparison of power output dur-
ing ergometer and track cycling in adolescent cyclists. J Strength
Cond Res. 2015;29(4):1049–56.
44. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J, Monod H. Force-veloc-
ity relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergometer. Correla-
tion with the height of a vertical jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1987;56(6):650–6.
45. Vercoe J, McGuigan MR. Relationship between strength and
power production capacities in trained sprint track cyclists. Kine-
siology. 2018;50:96–101.
46. Yi S. A feasibility study of sub-altitude training for short-distance
events in track cycling. J Capital Inst Phys Ed. 2009;21(6):763–6.
47. Calbet JA, De Paz JA, Garatachea N, Cabeza de aca S, Chavarren
J. Anaerobic energy provision does not limit Wingate exercise
performance in endurance-trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol (1985).
2003;94(2):668–76.
48. Craig NP, Norton KI, Conyers RA, Woolford SM, Bourdon PC,
Stanef T, et al. Influence of test duration and event specificity on
maximal accumulated oxygen deficit of high performance track
cyclists. Int J Sports Med. 1995;16(8):534–40.
49. De Lucas RD, Caputo F, Mancini E, Denadai BS. The validity of
critical speed determined from track cycling for identification of
the maximal lactate steady state. Biol Sport. 2002;19(3):239–49.
50. Gore CJ, Hahn A, Rice A, Bourdon P, Lawrence S, Walsh C, et al.
Altitude training at 2690m does not increase total haemoglobin
mass or sea level VO2max in world champion track cyclists. J Sci
Med Sport. 1998;1(3):156–70.
A. M. J. Stadnyk et al.
51. Harden M, Wolf A, Evans M, Hicks KM, Thomas K, Howatson G.
Four weeks of augmented eccentric loading using a novel leg press
device improved leg strength in well-trained athletes and profes-
sional sprint track cyclists. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0236663.
52. Klich S, Krymski I, Michalik K, Kawczynski A. Effect of short-
term cold-water immersion on muscle pain sensitivity in elite
track cyclists. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:42–7.
53. Kordi M, Folland JP, Goodall S, Menzies C, Patel TS, Evans
M, et al. Cycling-specific isometric resistance training improves
peak power output in elite sprint cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2020;30(9):1594–604.
54. Lindsay A, Petersen C, Ferguson H, Blackwell G, Rickerby
S. Lack of a dose response from 7 days of ischemic precondi-
tioning in moderately trained cyclists. Sports Med Int Open.
2018;2(4):E91–7.
55. Ma G, Li Z, Yang T, Liu M. Effects of different fatigue elimination
methods on the specific results of male track-sprinted cyclists. J
Beijing Sport Univ. 2011;34(9):62–5.
56. Overmayer RG, Driller MW. Pneumatic compression fails to
improve performance recovery in trained cyclists. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. 2018;13(4):490–5.
57. Sarkar S, Dasgupta S, Meitei KK, Adhikari S, Bandyopadhyay
A, Dey SK. Effect of eccentric cycling and plyometric training
on physiological and performance related parameters of trained
junior track cyclists. Pol J Sport Tour. 2020;27(1):14–20.
58. Tofari PJ, Cormack SJ, Ebert TR, Gardner AS, Kemp JG. Com-
parison of ergometer- and track-based testing in junior track-sprint
cyclists. Implications for talent identification and development. J
Sports Sci. 2017;35(19):1947–53.
59. Tomaras EK, MacIntosh BR. Less is more: standard warm-up
causes fatigue and less warm-up permits greater cycling power
output. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2011;111(1):228–35.
60. Yi S, Liu Y. Empirical research on speed training method of
man’s cycling short-distance event. J Capital Inst Phys Ed.
2012;24(6):547–51.
61. Broker JP, Kyle CR, Burke ER. Racing cyclist power requirements
in the 4000-m individual and team pursuits. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1999;31(11):1677–85.
62. Craig NP, Norton KI, Bourdon PC, Woolford SM, Stanef T,
Squires B, et al. Aerobic and anaerobic indices contributing to
track endurance cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1993;67(2):150–8.
63. Dorel S, Hautier CA, Rambaud O, Rouffet D, Van Praagh E,
Lacour JR, et  al. Torque and power-velocity relationships in
cycling: relevance to track sprint performance in world-class
cyclists. Int J Sports Med. 2005;26(9):739–46.
64. Stone MH, Sands WA, Carlock J, Callan S, Dickie D, Daigle K,
et al. The importance of isometric maximum strength and peak
rate-of-force development in sprint cycling. J Strength Cond Res.
2004;18(4):878–84.
65. Tsunawake N, Tahara Y, Yukawa K, Senju H. Body composition,
VO2 max and O2 debt max in elite senior high school male cyclists
[in Japanese]. Ann Physiol Anthropol. 1993;12(6):351–62.
66. Waldron M, Gray A, Furlan N, Murphy A. Predicting the sprint
performance of adolescent track cyclists using the 3-minute all-
out test. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(8):2299–306.
67. White JA, Quinn G, Al-Dawalibi M, Mulhall J. Seasonal changes
in cyclists’ performance. Part II. The British Olympic track squad.
Br J Sports Med. 1982;16(1):13–21.
68. Pienaar HJ, Payne WO, Keith JL. Utilising technology and muscle
activation patterns for improving sprint cycling performance. NZ
J Sports Med. 2017;44(1):20–5.
69. Samełko A, Tomaszewski G. Temperament of track cyclists and
their stress of during a sports performance. Phys Cult Sport Stud
Res. 2020;86(1):27–36.
Testing, Training, and Optimising Performance of Track Cyclists
70. Jennings CT, Reaburn P, Rynne SB. The effect of a self-modelling
video intervention on motor skill acquisition and retention of a
novice track cyclist’s standing start performance. Int J Sports Sci
Coach. 2013;8(3):467–80.
71. Benham GP, Cohen C, Brunet E, Clanet C. Brachis-
tochrone on a velodrome. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci.
2020;476(2238):1–18.
72. Christensen PM, Bangsbo J. Influence of prior intense exercise
and cold water immersion in recovery for performance and physi-
ological response during subsequent exercise. Front Physiol.
2016;7:269.
73. Corbett J. An analysis of the pacing strategies adopted by elite
athletes during track cycling. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2009;4(2):195–205.
74. Wright RL. Positive pacing strategies are utilized by elite male and
female para-cyclists in short time trials in the velodrome. Front
Physiol. 2015;6:425.
75. Dwyer DB, Ofoghi B, Huntsman E, Rossitto D, McMahon C,
Zeleznikow J. The elimination race in track cycling: patterns and
predictors of performance. J Sci Cycl. 2013;2(2):6–12.
76. Moffatt J, Scarf P, Passfield L, McHale IG, Zhang K. To lead or
not to lead: analysis of the sprint in track cycling. J Quant Anal
Sports. 2014;10(2):161–72.
77. Phillips KE, Hopkins WG. Performance relationships in timed and
mass-start events for elite omnium cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2017;12(5):628–33.
78. Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. The effect of non-con-
tingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time
trial performance in 4-km track cycling. Br J Sports Med.
2011;45(3):225–9.
79. Heimans L, Dijkshoorn WR, Hoozemans MJM, de Koning JJ.
Optimizing the team for required power during track-cycling team
pursuit. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(10):1385–91.
80. Gou B, Li Z, Yan J, Ma G. Application of SRM training sys-
tem to track flying 200 m time trial. J Xi’an Physical Ed Uni.
2010;27(5):583–8.
81. Ofoghi B, Zeleznikow J, Dwyer D, Macmahon C. Model-
ling and analysing track cycling Omnium performances using
statistical and machine learning techniques. J Sports Sci.
2013;31(9):954–62.
82. Sigrist S, Maier T, Faiss R. Qualitative video analysis of track-
cycling team pursuit in world-class athletes. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2017;12(10):1305–9.